Peer- Review Process

Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation Process

Health Sciences Quarterly (HSQ) conducts a rigorous double-anonymised peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and integrity of its publications. All editorial processes are managed through the journal’s online manuscript submission system.

The peer review and editorial evaluation process is structured as follows:

1. Technical and Administrative Check

All submitted manuscripts first undergo a technical and administrative check by the editorial office. At this stage, the submission is checked for completeness, anonymisation, formatting, and compliance with the journal’s basic submission requirements.

Authors are required to submit the following files:

• Blinded Manuscript File: The main manuscript file must be fully anonymised and must not include author names, affiliations, ORCID iDs, e-mail addresses, acknowledgements, funding details, ethics committee names or approval numbers, institutional identifiers, project numbers, or any other information that may reveal the identity of the authors.
• Title Page / Cover Page: This file must include author information and all required declarations, including author contributions, conflict of interest statement, funding statement, ethics committee approval statement, informed consent statement, animal research ethics statement where applicable, clinical trial registration where applicable, data availability statement, acknowledgements, artificial intelligence use statement, originality and duplicate submission statement, permissions statement, and patient/participant privacy statement.
• Cover Letter: The cover letter should confirm that the manuscript is original, has not been published previously, is not under consideration elsewhere, complies with the journal’s ethical and publication policies, and falls within the scope of Health Sciences Quarterly.
• Ethics Committee Approval Document: For studies involving human participants, patients, personal data, clinical interventions, biological material, surveys, interviews, observations, experimental procedures, or animal subjects, the relevant ethics committee approval document must be uploaded as an additional file when required.

Submissions that are incomplete, not properly anonymised, missing required declarations, or not compliant with the journal’s basic technical requirements may be returned to the authors before editorial evaluation.

2. Initial Editorial Review

The Editor-in-Chief first reviews all submitted manuscripts. The Editor-in-Chief may assign the manuscript to a relevant Section Editor. At this stage, the editor evaluates the manuscript according to the following criteria:

• Compliance with the aims and scope of the journal.
• Adherence to the author guidelines, formatting requirements, and submission file standards.
• Completeness of required ethical declarations and supporting documents.
• Originality, novelty, and contribution to the field.
• Scientific, clinical, methodological, or theoretical quality.
• Language quality and clarity of presentation.
• Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity standards.

The journal uses iThenticate similarity detection software to screen submissions. Manuscripts that are out of scope, lack originality, have serious scientific or methodological flaws, contain plagiarism, present unresolved ethical concerns, or fail to meet the journal’s basic quality standards may be rejected at this stage without external peer review. This decision is commonly referred to as a desk rejection.

3. Article Submission Fee after Preliminary Suitability Assessment

Health Sciences Quarterly charges a one-time article submission fee of 150 USD after preliminary editorial suitability assessment. Apart from this submission fee, the journal does not charge any article processing charge, acceptance fee, publication fee, page fee, colour fee, production fee, archiving fee, or post-acceptance fee.

Payment of the submission fee does not guarantee acceptance, does not guarantee external peer review, does not expedite the review process, and does not influence editorial or peer-review decisions. All manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, reviewer reports, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

4. Reviewer Appointment

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation are assigned to at least two (2) independent reviewers who have expertise in the relevant field. The Section Editor is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers and managing the peer review process under the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, publication record, methodological competence, and absence of conflicts of interest. When necessary, additional reviewers may be invited to ensure a balanced and rigorous evaluation.

5. Double-Anonymised Peer Review

The journal applies a double-anonymised peer review model:

• Authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers.
• Reviewers’ identities are concealed from authors.

Reviewers are invited via the online submission system and are asked to evaluate the manuscript in terms of originality, research question, methodology, ethical compliance, validity of findings, contribution to the field, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and comprehensive comments to the authors and a confidential recommendation to the editor.

The standard review period is 30 days / 4 weeks. This period may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision rounds, or editorial requirements.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities and Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not share, copy, distribute, discuss, or use unpublished material from the manuscript for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest and decline the invitation if they cannot provide an objective and independent review. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts fairly, respectfully, and based on scientific evidence.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer forms, or confidential editorial materials to artificial intelligence tools or third-party platforms, as this may violate confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property, and peer-review integrity obligations.

7. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the Section Editor submits a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. Possible editorial decisions include:

• Accept Submission: The manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor or major revisions before a final decision can be made.
• Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and must undergo a new round of peer review.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author by the editorial office or Editor-in-Chief, together with anonymised reviewer comments where applicable.

8. Author Revisions

If a revision decision is made, authors are expected to revise their manuscript according to reviewer and editor comments. Authors must submit a revised manuscript and a detailed point-by-point response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed. Any changes made in the manuscript should be clearly indicated where possible.

Authors are usually given the following deadlines:

• 21 days / 3 weeks for minor revisions.
• 60 days / 8 weeks for major revisions.

Extensions may be granted upon reasonable request. Revised manuscripts may, at the editor’s discretion, be sent back to the original reviewers or to new reviewers for further evaluation.

9. Final Decision

Final authority over all manuscripts rests with the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is based on the recommendations of the Section Editor, reviewer reports, the quality of the revised manuscript, ethical compliance, and the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.

The final decision may be acceptance, further revision, resubmission for review, or rejection. Acceptance is granted only when the manuscript satisfies the journal’s scientific, ethical, editorial, and technical publication standards.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that their manuscript has been rejected due to a procedural error, misunderstanding, or unfair assessment may appeal the decision by contacting the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals must include a detailed, evidence-based justification for reconsideration.

Disagreement with reviewer comments alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal. The Editor-in-Chief may consult the Section Editor, additional reviewers, or members of the Editorial Board where necessary. The journal handles appeals and complaints fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with publication ethics guidance.

11. Copyediting, Layout Editing and Proof Control

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to copyediting, layout editing, and proof production. The corresponding author is sent galley proofs for final checking before publication.

At the proof stage, only minor typographical, formatting, or production-related errors may be corrected. No substantial changes in content, data, analysis, results, conclusions, authorship, author order, funding information, or ethical declarations are allowed at this stage unless approved by the Editor-in-Chief for exceptional reasons.

12. Editorial Independence and Ethical Oversight

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by the publisher, journal owner, submission fee payments, institutional relationships, commercial interests, or external pressure. The journal follows COPE principles and relevant ICMJE recommendations in matters of peer review, authorship, conflicts of interest, corrections, retractions, appeals, complaints, and publication ethics.

Editors may request additional information, documentation, ethics approval records, raw data, similarity clarification, consent forms, or authorship explanations at any stage of the editorial process where necessary.